The Economic and Social Committee in EEC decision making

1980 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet Lodge ◽  
Valentine Herman

Neo-functionalism ascribes a dynamic role to interest groups in the process of integrating pluralist communities. By participating in the policymaking process, interest groups are expected to develop a stake in promoting further integration in order to acquire economic payoffs and additional benefits from maintaining and stimulating the organization through which certain demands can be articulated and goals attained. This implies that in the integration process interest groups have an instrumental role to play in the maintenance of the system; and that by virtue of their participation in the policy-making process of an integrating community they will “learn” about the rewards of such involvement and undergo attitudinal changes inclining them favorably towards the system. Thus, they acquire an interest in seeing the system's perpetuation, and the policy and decision makers acquire an interest in being responsive to interest groups' demands. What is implied overall is that actors' loyalties will shift towards those decision makers in the systems best able to reward them.

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anubha Taneja Mukherjee

Decision making is an inherently complicated procedure, which by its very nature requires the decision-maker to co-opt all the stakeholders concerned. The procedure of decision-making may vary from country to country, depending on its size, culture, history and special demographic circumstances. Around the world, key decision-makers include the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. While the distribution of powers between these three may vary in tandem with their relation to each other, their roles remain the same. While the legislature enacts laws for its citizens, the executive, popularly known as the government, implements these laws and while doing so promulgates policies that are in alignment with the said laws. Mostly, the executive is also authorised to promulgate some laws of its own. The judiciary, on the other hand, comes into the picture when there is a dispute with regard to such laws. It also steps in on its own at times. While settling such disputes, the judiciary also ends up setting what we know as precedents, which also become a part of the legal fabric of a society. In a nutshell, these three are the key decision makers in any country. As mentioned above, while making decisions, these authorities are mostly required to co-opt all the stakeholders concerned, thereby making decision making a consultative process. These stakeholders include think tanks, research bodies, media and most importantly the affected party. The reason for having such a consultative procedure in place is that the decision makers are not experts in every subject or issue that comes their way. For instance, when a need to promulgate a national policy on thalassemia presents itself to a certain government, whether it be owing to media reportage or representations from the civil society, the decision makers will look towards people considered to be the experts in the subject to come forward and be a part of the policy making. One could say that this sounds like an ideal situation where the government actually invites people concerned with thalassemia to come forward and share views about it for the purpose of policy making. It is, however, true! It is as true for India as it is for any developed country. What we must ensure then is that the government or the decision maker considers us, the patients, as the experts. While it does sound obvious that those impacted with the disorder would be the ones with the first-hand knowledge about the disorder, the very fact that there is a topic in this conference on the role of patients in decision making speaks volumes about the distance that remains to be covered by the patients of thalassemia as far as participation in decision-making is concerned. With the massive strides in the field of medical science and the unflinching support of organisations like Thalassemia International Federation (TIF), we have now reached the stage where we must step out of the victim mode and represent ourselves before the decision-makers, whether by forming Patients Advocacy Groups or otherwise. One may take cue from various associations around the world. Global HD Organisations are a good example. They are known to have got together to give patients a voice in clinical research. The most popular strategy for reaching out to the decision makers is to unite, engage, and partner both in private meetings and consultative fora like events, task forces and projects. “Unite, Engage & Partner” can therefore be the most successful mantra for engaging with the decision makers. Talking of examples of advocacy and participation by patients, while there are numerous examples in Europe and North America of the power of patient advocacy so much so that patients are on the same level as doctors when it comes to voicing opinions in policy making, TIF on an international level has created since 2009 the Expert Patients Programme, and is now moving forward in giving patients a voice through its educational platform. Recently, India also launched its first Thalassemia Patients Advocacy Group (PAG) in the august presence of the Deputy Chief Minister of the capital of the country. The India PAG has seven patients from the fields of law, psychology, education and IT. The Group is already involved with the government on the formulation of the National Thalassemia Policy. This is a great start and this should give enough and more encouragement to thalassemics across the world to UNITE, ENGAGE AND PARTNER in the process that impacts them the most – decision-making!


2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Chulwon Lee

The future direction of China's approach to energy policy making is, of course, difficult to predict. This is due not only to the opaque and fragmented nature of Chinese energy policy decision-making, but also to the fact that energy policy is a new topic for China's leaders and the individuals they rely on for advice to master that impinges on the interests of actors throughout the Chinese bureaucracy. The wide range of participants in the energy policy debate indicates that more diversified views on it probably reach the top leadership. The impact of the multiplicity of opinions is two-fold. It can result in more informed decision-making, but it can also delay the process as decision makers must assess a larger number of competing and sometimes contradictory views.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebin Dr. Fard

<p>To answer the research question , I focus on the domestic level to draw up a profile of the German foreign policy making process. For the analysis content analysis is used as a research method in order to examine the legitimate actors who make foreign policy decisions and determine the guidelines of German foreign policy. </p>


Author(s):  
Jonas Verstraete ◽  
Freya Acar ◽  
Grazia Concilio ◽  
Paola Pucci

AbstractIt is becoming clearer that data-supported input is essential in the policy making process. But at which point of the process, and in which format, can data aid policy making? And what does an organisation need to turn data into relevant insights? This paper explores the role of data from two perspectives. In the first part, data and data analysis are situated in the policy making process by mapping them onto the data supported policy making model and highlighting the different roles they can assume in each stage and step of the process. The second part discusses a practical framework for policy-oriented data activities, zooming in on the data-specific actions and the actors performing them in each data-supported step of the policy making process. We observe that a close collaboration between the policy maker and data scientist in the framework of an iterative approach permits to transform the policy question into a suited data analysis question and deliver relevant insights with the flexibility desired by decision makers. In conclusion, for data to be turned into actionable policy insights it is vital to set up structures that ensure the presence and the collaboration of policy-oriented and data-oriented competences.


1984 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Gais ◽  
Mark A. Peterson ◽  
Jack L. Walker

President Carter will perhaps be remembered most for his perceived incompetence, an impression produced largely by his inability to forge coalitions in Congress, and by his failure as an ‘outsider’ to intervene effectively in the established policy-making processes in Washington. In his farewell address, Carter alluded to what he believed to be the source of his troubles – the fragmentation of power and decision-making exploited by influential special interests. Carter believed that he was trapped in a web of organized groups allied with well-placed congressional and bureaucratic sympathizers seeking to protect their narrowly defined interests and frustrating his own broader vision of the public good.


Author(s):  
Fiona Hayes-Renshaw

This chapter examines how European Union policies are made. Most EU legislation is now adopted according to the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, under which the Council and the European Parliament have equal powers. The basic policy-making rules laid down in the Treaties have been supplemented over the years by formal agreements and informal understandings between the main actors in the decision-making institutions. EU policy-making is open to criticism on grounds of democracy, transparency, and efficiency, but it continues to deliver an impressive amount and array of policy outcomes. The chapter considers the basic rules and principal actors involved in EU policy-making and how the policy-making process works in practice. It also asks whether the EU policy-making process is democratic, transparent, and efficient before concluding with an assessment of the theory and practice underlying the process.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns

This chapter focuses on the so-called organized interests, whose interaction with the formal European Union (EU) institutions is a central component of the EU’s decision-making process. The term ‘interest group’ refers to a range of organizations outside of the formal institutions that seek to influence decision making. They provide a link between state actors and the rest of society, also known as ‘civil society’. The chapter first considers the general growth of interest group activity at the European level before discussing the types of group that try to influence EU policy making and the forms of representation open to interests. It then explores the strategies and tactics that interest groups use to try to influence the different institutions. Finally, it analyses the issue of regulating interest group access to the EU institutions.


Author(s):  
Daniel Kenealy ◽  
Fiona Hayes-Renshaw

This chapter examines how European Union policies are made. Most EU legislation is now adopted according to the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, under which the Council and the European Parliament have equal powers. The basic policy-making rules laid down in the Treaties have been supplemented over the years by formal agreements and informal understandings between the main actors in the decision-making institutions. EU policy-making is open to criticism on grounds of democracy, transparency, and efficiency, but it continues to deliver an impressive amount and array of policy outcomes. The chapter considers the basic rules and principal actors involved in EU policy-making and how the policy-making process works in practice. It also asks whether the EU policy-making process is democratic, transparent, and efficient, before concluding with an assessment of the theory and practice underlying the process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document